Is Trey Dickerson Hurt/Injured?

For some reason, when I think Dickerson I think of Beetlejuice from Howard Stern:

beetlejuice.jpg




3201534.JPG
 
He said he was hurt the previous game but I haven't heard anything about last night. I'm starting to think he might be in the doghouse for poor play because he's losing minutes and the other freshman (Uhl and Ellington) are playing.
 
I understand if he's "raw" but by god, what the hell is Clemons then?

Agreed. Sorry, but I'm just not impressed with Clemmons.. What exactly does he bring that warrants him being in the starting 5?

I'm not saying Dickerson should start, but good lord, let's get the guy some minutes. How is he going to improve if he's sitting on the end of the bench every game?
 
Trey's existence on this roster goes back to the summer time conversations on this board. He was offered a scholly for a reason considering we had 2 returning to be junior PG's on the roster. That reason is we needed someone who could be a difference maker off of the bounce that could make others better around him. We needed quickness which he possesses. Meaning Gessell and Clemmons do not provide that.

The issue is his play in very limited minutes was erratic. Fran showed little patience and squashed his minutes. This was a mistake. In hindsight since Fran spent a scholly on him he should have committed to playing him a lot with the idea of letting him make the adjustment to big time D-1 ball. Assuming he sticks with us which is a big if and stays eligible academically, we have essentially wasted a year and do not have a clue if he can help us next year or not. Would we be that much worse off as we are not making the NCAA's or the NIT in all likelihood anyway?

I am not trying to bag on MG or AC as they play hard. It is just not working with either of them in a prominent role at the PG.
 
I presume Dickerson has looked in practice like he has in games--bad. Really, he hasn't even looked promising.

It was a curious scholarship offer to begin with. Another true point guard, that was a low major recruit out of high school that is only one year behind two returning point guards.

Quite frankly, we'd probably be best off if he transferred giving us two scholarships for the Spring signing/transfer market. We desperately need a big and could probably get a better guard than Dickerson with more class separation from Gessell/Clemmons.
 
I presume Dickerson has looked in practice like he has in games--bad. Really, he hasn't even looked promising.

It was a curious scholarship offer to begin with. Another true point guard, that was a low major recruit out of high school that is only one year behind two returning point guards.

Quite frankly, we'd probably be best off if he transferred giving us two scholarships for the Spring signing/transfer market. We desperately need a big and could probably get a better guard than Dickerson with more class separation from Gessell/Clemmons.

You are probably right but here is what we know

1. We lack a difference maker at PG. Someone with speed and quickness that can create for others especially in the half court

2. Trey has some of those raw attributes

3. He has been erratic in limited minutes but has received little to no extended PT to work through the adjustment period

4. Olgesby drains everything in practice... Not so much in games

I do agree that it would be better now if he transferred but the point is did we provide him a good enough opportunity to be successful?
 
Dickerson reminds me of Beathard. I'm almost certain they aren't the answer but I 100% know Clemmons and Ruddock aren't the answer and the ceiling is higher for the Dickerson/Beathard so put em in and let then learn by fire.
 
Dickerson reminds me of Beathard. I'm almost certain they aren't the answer but I 100% know Clemmons and Ruddock aren't the answer and the ceiling is higher for the Dickerson/Beathard so put em in and let then learn by fire.

I am right with you. What does it hurt at this point in a season going no where?
 
Trey's existence on this roster goes back to the summer time conversations on this board. He was offered a scholly for a reason considering we had 2 returning to be junior PG's on the roster. That reason is we needed someone who could be a difference maker off of the bounce that could make others better around him. We needed quickness which he possesses. Meaning Gessell and Clemmons do not provide that.

The issue is his play in very limited minutes was erratic. Fran showed little patience and squashed his minutes. This was a mistake. In hindsight since Fran spent a scholly on him he should have committed to playing him a lot with the idea of letting him make the adjustment to big time D-1 ball. Assuming he sticks with us which is a big if and stays eligible academically, we have essentially wasted a year and do not have a clue if he can help us next year or not. Would we be that much worse off as we are not making the NCAA's or the NIT in all likelihood anyway?

I am not trying to bag on MG or AC as they play hard. It is just not working with either of them in a prominent role at the PG.


He is certainly not getting enough minutes and therefore not improving. He would turn the ball over and get pulled, which hampers his game, his ability to pass the alley oop was supposed to be one of his strengths. Uhl is getting a lot of playing time and getting gradually better. I like Brady's shooting but very little playing time msking it hard to tell how skillful he is in other aspects.....

I do like the way he automatically shoots it when he is open without question.....

Uthoff should shoot the ball much more, he is versitile, can create his shot and shoot the three as well as anyone on the team, but he disappears a lot on offense. Everyone seems tentative.....
 
He is certainly not getting enough minutes and therefore not improving. He would turn the ball over and get pulled, which hampers his game, his ability to pass the alley oop was supposed to be one of his strengths. Uhl is getting a lot of playing time and getting gradually better. I like Brady's shooting but very little playing time msking it hard to tell how skillful he is in other aspects.....

I do like the way he automatically shoots it when he is open without question.....

Uthoff should shoot the ball much more, he is versitile, can create his shot and shoot the three as well as anyone on the team, but he disappears a lot on offense. Everyone seems tentative.....

Noone has seen enough of dickerson in any meaningful minutes to know anything. what we do know is playing gesell and clemmons is awful. something has to change and i think it begins with clemmons and ogles by on the bench
 
Noone has seen enough of dickerson in any meaningful minutes to know anything. what we do know is playing gesell and clemmons is awful. something has to change and i think it begins with clemmons and ogles by on the bench

Dickerson may be a total bust but at this point it is worth kicking the tires some to see what we have.

How much worse can he be than our PG's that ran an offense that goes 3-24 and turns it over 10 times in the second half against an MVC team? The issue is he gets one mistake and he is out. Fran needs to have some patience and tell him what he wants him to do which should be dribble drive to create shots for others.
 
He's suffering from McCaff/Ferentz-stubborn-itis

Usually fatal to one's playing time and contribution.
 

Latest posts

Top